So I just discovered this about Islam

[PierzStyx]

Yep. And I already said that. Christians use circular reasoning to support the Bible. That said, there is external evidence that supports at least some of the claims of the Bible. For instance the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian, confirm that Jesus and other church leaders existed. (Some atheists have made the laughable claim that there was no historical Jesus.) And modern archeology has confirmed places mentioned only in the Bible that skeptics used to say did not exist like the pool of Siloam. But ultimately it comes down to faith.



Yes. Jesus said the same thing. "By your fruits ye shall know them." And "By this shall all men know ye are my disciples. By your love one for another."

It has to come down to faith because the Qur'an is easy to use as an archaeological text as well as far as places exclusive to it go. If that was going to be "proof" it is just as easy to prove in that respect.

 

[PierzStyx]

I came to post this for jmdrake, but anyone else of course should read this if interested in Islam or Muhammad ص http://www.islamicbulletin.org/free_downloads/prophet/sealed_nectar.pdf -- it's probably the most common English Sirah

And I'm not going to continue a debate here, but to I suppose clarify my position, the fact that the Qur'an mentions stories in great detail regarding numerous prophets and messengers indicates a much deeper understanding of the Abrahamic scriptures than someone who passively learns them. Only a scholar of the scriptures could create the Qur'an which we know Muhammad ص was not, unless he was taught in total secret, by a well educated scriptural scholar. I'm merely asking for the historical evidence of that, because all of what we know about Muhammad ص shows this is highly unlikely.

And jmdrake, I specifically bowed out of the debate because of your lack of understanding of the harfs of the Qur'an. They are not another language, they are different dialects and styles of Arabic. They were taught all by Muhammad ص himself, not translated by other companions (this would have been a HUGE sin for them to alter the Qur'an in anyway).

The harfs were revealed when Arabs would have trouble understanding some of the Qur'an, and Muhammad ص said he asked jibreel for accommodations especially for the lesser educated Arabs. Seven styles were revealed. The companion and exegete Ibn Masood explained the harf by saying, it's "no different than saying halumma, aqbil, or ta'aal" which are all words for "come here", in Arabic. Some Arabs are accustomed to one way than the other, based on tribes and locality.

As an Arabic speaker, the difference between dialects are vast and I do not understand plenty of dialects [or they are difficult for me]. This was also the case for Muhammad's ص followers. This is why he taught the Qu'ran seven different ways.

Well actually Muhammad never had any of the Qur'an written down, nor were any of the hadiths, while he lived. They were all constructed after his death by his followers. Uthman's big project as Caliph was specifically putting together the Qur'an, and the hadiths are all based on how well you trust tradition and people who supposedly said stuff Muhammad did decades after he said and did those things. There is plenty of room for error there and I see no reason, beyond faith, to believe that either the Qur'an or the hadith are perfect texts.

 

[Muwahid]

Well actually Muhammad never had any of the Qur'an written down, nor were any of the hadiths, while he lived. They were all constructed after his death by his followers. Uthman's big project as Caliph was specifically putting together the Qur'an, and the hadiths are all based on how well you trust tradition and people who supposedly said stuff Muhammad did decades after he said and did those things. There is plenty of room for error there and I see no reason, beyond faith, to believe that either the Qur'an or the hadith are perfect texts.

I posted on this topic a few page back.

The word Qur'an means "recitation", the Qur'an was not intended as a book. I'll go over the basics here.

A verse would be revealed to Muhammad ص
He would recite it, and teach it to his companions
He had several scribes, he would have them write it, to teach other people

When Muhammad ص died, the Qur'an was written, probably a few times over on these fragments. During the first caliph, Abu Bakr's reign, he tasked after the battle of Yamamah in which many Haafiz (people who fully memorized the Qur'an) died, Zayd ibn Thaabit with collecting all those fragments from the scribes, and each fragment needed two credible witnesses to authenticate it was indeed written on the command of the prophet.

This is how the first codex of the Qur'an was compiled.

Uthman, later standardized the harf into the original Qurayshi harf (there were six others, in six other dialects revealed to Muhammad ص). He did this because in foreign lands they would argue over who has the correct version, even though both were correct, to clear up confusion, the original harf was distributed to the conquered provinces.

And that's really the end of the story as simplified as I could make it.

Hadiths are a bit more precarious I can admit, but underwent a very similar process. Many were orally transmitted from companions, however, the earliest book of Hadith known to exist, was from Abu Hurayrah's (Prophet's companion) student himself Hammam bin Munabih, so there's no gap between the prophet and his companions, and the compilation of hadiths in written form.

By the way many hadiths were written by companions, early Caliphs warned against putting them into books however, because he thought people might take them as holy books. The hadiths we have today have secure trustworthy isnads going back to the companion who heard it, many are mutawattir, meaning reported through different isnads (i.e., different people reporting the same event) meaning it's likely to be more credible, and this is the basics of how we authenticate hadiths.

People try to make the case that Bukhari was compiled 200 years after Muhammad ص as if that was the only compilation, even today we have much older compilations containing the same hadiths, Bukharis goal was simply to make a book for laymen (so they don't have to worry about authentication) that covers all aspects of life, supported by hadiths, he took them from older, known hadith compilations. I already mentioned Hammam bin Munabih's book, and there are two copies existing still today of this, other than that, there's of course Abd al-Razzaqs Musannaf from the 1st century AH, and then Imam Malik's Muwatta, coming around 100 years after the prophets.

So you can see an unbroken line of hadith compilations, just from what we have in existence today, there were of course much more 1000 years ago, but after being compiled in larger books, by more well known scholars like Bukhari, Muslim, the four imams, etc, they got lost, stopped being circulated, and we have what we have today.

 

[Leaning Libertarian]

Yes, there was a time in history when Christian's went conquering by the sword, indiscriminately killing the "Godless." This was a time called the "Dark Ages." There is also a time in history when the Islamic State went conquering by the sword, indiscriminately killing the "infidels." This was a time called "yesterday afternoon."

Personally, I feel it to be misinterpretation of descriptive vs. prescriptive text. Be it in the Holy Bible, or in the Holy Qur'an.

In the Holy Bible, when King David was told to "... go forth and slay utterly." was that a prescriptive text, saying all good Christians should follow this command, or was it a descriptive text, indicating a specific act, for one specific time in history? I prefer to interpret it as descriptive.

In the Holy Qur'an, when it is ordered to "... Kill the infidels wherever you find them." Is it a prescriptive act, saying all good Muslims should follow this command, or was it again a descriptive text, indicating a specific act, for one specific time in history? I again prefer to interpret it as descriptive.

Throughout history, there have always been individuals and collections of like minded people, who will attempt to make these acts of violence as prescriptive, usually through intentions of malfeasance. They will use these acts of violence to further their own personal quest for financial or political power.

I don't think those advocating this violence has anything other than their personal gain in mind. To me, it doesn't really reflect the beliefs of the religious, be it Christian or Muslim.

 

[Jamesiv1]

1. There is only one God Almighty, he just goes by different names. 'God' is one of many names, 'Allah' is one of many names.
2. There are also lesser gods that arrived here long, long ago from places far, far away.
3. God sent different Prophets, Messengers, Sages and Saviors to different parts of the world at different times to teach people how to live a good life and have a personal relationship with God.
4. All the badness of religions over the centuries is the fault of humans, not God.
5. Anybody that doesn't believe the same way I do is going to spend eternity burning in the hellfire of damnation.